Kelly McParland: Elizabeth May is 'sickened' that other parties don't want to throw her a lifeline

Elizabeth May is 'sickened' that other parties don't want to throw Greens a lifeline

Elizabeth May is proclaiming herself surprised that members of the NDP and Liberal parties have rejected her proposal for a co-operative electoral arrangement in advance of the next election.

In fact, she’s appalled that the Leader of the Opposition, Thomas Mulcair, has instructed his troops to ignore her plan for a “stop Harper” movement, and forbidden them from replying to a letter she sent inviting informal discussions.

“This is the problem with hyper-partisanship, this is what I’ve been saying all along,” Ms. May told The Hill Times, which reported the Green Party leaders approach.

“Every party in this country, except the Green Party, puts their partisan, short-term, advantage ahead of the good of the country, and it sickens me, and it’s constant.”

Eight of the nine Liberal leadership candidates have rejected the proposal, and Liberal MPs have similarly been instructed to give her the cold shoulder, she maintains.

It doesn’t take a lot of calculating to figure out that the most likely beneficiary of “co-operation” among Greens and the other parties would be… the Greens.

“A lot of the NDP Members of Parliament are friends of mine that pre-date either of us being involved in politics. They have to accept Tom Mulcair telling them they’re not allowed to respond to a letter from me, people who I’ve known since 1982 are not allowed to write back?” she said.

Well, yes. And why would the leader of the NDP do otherwise?

Let’s do the math. The NDP won 103 seats in the last election. The Liberals won 34. The Greens won 1. It doesn’t take a lot of calculating to figure out that the most likely beneficiary of “co-operation” among Greens and the other parties would be… the Greens. With just 3.9% of the vote, the Green tally was actually down significantly from the previous election. Ms. May’s own victory was more an anomaly than a trend, the result of her own high profile and the concentration of party resources on getting her a seat.

Should the other parties agree to pool resources with her in some ridings, as Ms. May suggests, her troops are likely to gain far more than they can contribute. There may be a few seats where support for Greens could help push a Liberal or NDP candidate over the top, but, as the figures indicate, the Greens’ ground game across much of the country is at best thin: in only two provinces – B.C. and Alberta – did its support top 5%. The main benefit of co-operation for Ms. May isn’t the likelihood of ousting Stephen Harper, it’s the likelihood she’d win more than her one seat.

To suggest that “hyper-partisanship” is behind the other leaders’ reluctance to throw her a lifeline is at best naïve, at worst hypocritical. She appears to equate the fortunes of the Green party with the best interests of the country as a whole, which is exactly the sin of which she accuses the others. Is Mr. Mulcair “hyper-partisan” to believe he can field a slate of candidates capable of attracting Canadians, even without the few thousand Green votes Ms. May might be able to supply him in a few ridings? Are the Liberals hyper-partisan to think that diluting their support further, by allying the party with the one-seat Greens, is unlikely to help them convince former supporters they’re on the road to recovery as a strong independent voice?

You can’t blame Ms. May for trying. She has the benefit of being the little guy, the perennial underdog, striving for a place at the main table. But until she demonstrates an ability to get her own members elected, she’s unlikely to convince other, larger parties that she can win more seats for them.